I can't believe I've just read that. Every statement is wrong....

I can't believe I've just read that. Every statement is wrong. You're supporting implementation of a flawed technical solution because it was quicker. I myself would have been happy to wait a few more months to get the approvals in place for a process that had a much higher chance of success. In hindsight, nothing good came from the alkaline processing scenario. This foray lost money from the outset, it cost significant reputation damage (shareholders, financiers and purchasers), it resulted in poor utilisation of the resource and it reduced PEN's ability to maximise on the advantageous LT uranium contracts they had executed.   

"I think we can all agree that low pH will work, the question is by how much..." If it only works by half, i.e. 50% of nameplate, then does that mean low pH processing "works". No it doesn't. The definition of "works" must be that the new plant must perform at nameplate or better. As a minimum, the performance of the process plant must be such that PEN (not Strata Energy) does not lose money. Considering PEN's past failure's any impartial potential investor would expect that as an absolute minimum.